The addition of two big eastern schools in major media markets would make one think that future expansion for the sake of even more revenue would be wise to do *after* the renegotiation as to set a benchmark to further increase. If the addition of UMD and Rutgers adds +$x to the current payout, then thereafter, further additions would be +$x+y. Doing it now under the current umbrella shorts the B1G, unless the programs they are looking to include won't necessarily propel a future renegotiation.

To me, getting into the Beltway, NYC, and ALSO Atlanta and UNC? The B1G isn't that dumb. They could milk a network dry getting those schools after benefiting from the first two. Even adding UVA would decidedly increase the pot. And even this assumes these schools are leaving...and they aren't (seriously, is anyone reading how much some of these schools are stewing over UMD's defection?).

If they're looking to expand again before further negotiations, this leads me to believe the schools are small or their markets aren't of significant value. That sounds like Kansas, Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse.

Time to start keeping an eye on BoT schedules and agendas. That's where we'll find the movement.

And even this assumes these schools are leaving...and they aren't (seriously, is anyone reading how much some of these schools are stewing over UMD's defection?).

Time to start keeping an eye on BoT schedules and agendas. That's where we'll find the movement.

Yes, there is anger over the Maryland defection. One can just look at the UNC fan sites and get a sense of it. And now, there is the "circling of the wagons" affect, riding on the "cat is outta the bag" stuff. No suprise element now, all are closely watching each other as to who slithers and with whom.

UNC, particularly without in-state partners, would be the most difficult of all ACC schools to extract. The Maryland exit is too touchy of an issue right now; and really, with all the legal positioning going on, would the B1G be doing anything at the moment to cause Maryland further expensive complications in leaving the ACC, or for that matter, risk injecting the B1G itself directly into being a defendant in new costly lawsuits?

GT & UVA Presidents have both denied rumors they are in transition talks with the B1G. Presidents can deflect and deliver clever comments, but if such was not true, they would be outright lying given the directness of their statements. And there would be professional repercussions for that.

Indeed, BoT activity shall be where the real indicators exist (not so much the equipment salesman who supposedly leaks to mr sec).

Talk of 2-4 ACC defections to the B1G seems like the result of off-season boredom this year. I expect the B1g to field the announced 14 teams in 2014; maybe we'll see more later. The only thing is that the conference seems in no hurry to announce the new divisional alignment although most appear set on:

There will certainly be more expansion/reailignment somewhere. But Internet rumors shall flourish whether credibility is evident or not. The B1G may not be interested in stopping many of those for reasons not related to direct expansion for it feeds into power perceptions. When they do say anything on record, the speculative legions will parse the words and run with it. Sherman statements don't stop it, and no major conference wants to deliver absolute denials given they could be forced to change their plans due to unpredictable events or show cards they don't have to.

Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC. The Big Ten, once having a perfect opportunity, burned that bridge for a long time; and as long as Delany & many of those B1G Presidents are around, it will not be considered.

I think Missouri would come to the table if the B1G called.

Missouri is NOT leaving the SEC for the B1G. The B1G had their chance with the Tigers and blew it by choosing Nebraska. Mizzou Nation is all SEC all the time an is reasonably happy with it.

Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC. The Big Ten, once having a perfect opportunity, burned that bridge for a long time; and as long as Delany & many of those B1G Presidents are around, it will not be considered.

I think Missouri would come to the table if the B1G called.

Missouri is NOT leaving the SEC for the B1G. The B1G had their chance with the Tigers and blew it by choosing Nebraska. Mizzou Nation is all SEC all the time an is reasonably happy with it.

I think the faculty, administration, and board of trustees would say otherwise. And if Maryland could walk from the ACC, Missouri can walk from a conference it hardly knows. Mind you, it's not that I think they should come to the table if called, because I think they have a great reason to be pissed about being stiff-armed from the conference. Why Rutgers ahead of them? A television market? Really?! New Brunswick is a dump, and Rutgers is Fallback U.

But I do think Missouri still fits the mold of what the B1G tends to target: low-baggage schools from conferences with swelling demand. If we look at the "pattern:"

...a school like Missouri is relatively easy to acquire. Far easier to pluck than, say, ACC and B12 schools.

But, ultimately, I think the Big Ten, by taking Rutgers and Maryland, shot themselves logistically in the foot. Neither school gets them into the "core" of the ACC or any closer to Notre Dame, which are the supposed endgames. It opens the door for the likes of the Service Academies (Air Force and Navy), Pitt (until it officially joins the ACC in June/July), Syracuse (same as Pitt), UConn (probably the rejected applicant from the Fall), Rice, and Tulane. Those are the schools that can readily join if the move to 16 is, in fact, on. So, if those above are on the board, and Missouri's only not because of this perceived "happiness with the SEC," who are the ideal candidates?

I don't know...maybe Pitt and Missouri are the best this conference can do from here on out?

If a school, or a group of schools, want to join another conference, and the school(s) are invited in and approved by the new conference, indeed fine as long as they pay REASONABLE exit costs and give proper notice as to when leaving.

By a conference attempting to lure certain schools through aggressive COERCION, perhaps in collusion with TV network interests, is so disturbing and really damaging for college sports overall. The B1G may be more cautious now about strategy for PR and legal reasons, as well as cultivating improved internal concurrence; but the ultimate outcome may not be much different.

Also some conferences have resorted to these extraordinary defensive measures (extreme GoRs' and/or exit fees) that are self-imposed along with litigated enforcement efforts, perhaps nullifying improved opportunties for some of them within who basically had to go along, looks so reactionary though perceived as necessary for conference survival.

Well, it is the times. When corporate broadcasting and advertising CEOs' get involved, and the legions of lawyers engaged, and schools/conferences are conditioned to be more greedy, no suprise as to what is transpiring.

By a conference attempting to lure certain schools through aggressive COERCION, perhaps in collusion with TV network interests, is so disturbing and really damaging for college sports overall. The B1G may be more cautious now about strategy for PR and legal reasons, as well as cultivating improved internal concurrence; but the ultimate outcome may not be much different.

I'm not sure where that's really happening, though, other than the Big East. So many of these moves have been in the works for some time. Even those "odd" ones, like WVU to the Big XII, UMD to the B1G, and Missouri to the SEC...they were all predicated by years of internal disdain and other issues.

There's something getting kicked around about GT being "unhappy" about a scheduling issue for the upcoming season, where they get their longest two road trips in back-to-back weeks. Naturally, the WV board is saying this is the "smoke" one should see, but that boy's called wolf too many times that it just can't be taken seriously. However, one comment was made that it does fit the sort of "miff" that tends to signify deeper issues. One damaging comment of note from the AD's office:

Quote:

“I don’t know how much we’re going to continue to take in that regard..."

He's talking about playing non-Saturday games. And them's fighting words.

Well then, the B1G should set the record straight, but they won't. If the motive, in part, was to take Maryland, & then Rutgers, to punish the ACC for taking Notre Dame, then that has an element of vindictiveness to it. But, I think that was only a minor factor. I believe it was mainly about building the east coast presence with a couple of AAU flagships for TV purposes and follow the SEC at going to 14. Yes, both MD. & Rutgers had been batted about as potential Big10 possibilities for years. With the ACC additions, the eastern field essentially narrowed to them, though one was a charter ACC member. Maryland became ripe for pickin' with their financial woes and leadership not so bonded with the ACC.

The "coercion" factor is not something I invented; just put a term to it. The bloggers that say "their sources" tell them (and use a mild hypotetical here, but certainly not out-of-line with what's been said) that the B!G shall go next for GT and UVA, then they will be able to extract UNC and Duke (or another) for their 18 member or so super-conference. If true, that is coercion and collusion. Certainly, schools such as UNC, Duke, and UVA are not lobbying the B1G for membership and are not seeking the demise of their precious (to them) ACC. If Gee suggested 18 (which Smith sort of retracted later), that does imply aggressive expansion. I doubt Gee or any other B1G source would be talking about adding a crop of nBE schools.

Correct, Cutter. Other high-profile expansions were in the works for years or by seizing the moment by taking a quality school unhappy with their situation. That is not a grand design to get to whom they really want. For example, the SEC did not add Texas A&M & Mizzou to "get to" Texas & Oklahoma as follow-up additions. In fairness to the B1G, they may not have an "offical" plan to destroy the ACC & take all/most of their AAU schools. But these ideas get repeated so much they take a life of their own----which they hope, say it enough and it shall happen---or create a bandwagon effect.

That WVU blog stuff looks like bull nonsense with a powerless agenda. One of games of GT is BYU which is non-conference. And every other game with Miami is to go there. If GT was ever to go to the B10 or the B12, there would be back-to-back travel games there too. The AJC article sounds like GT is mad with their former AD as well. They are complaining about the whole schedule. Given the ACC's history, I can see where UNC may get favored if true in this situation. However, Paul Johnson has been getting a lot of grief from GT fans about mediocre seasons. And, attendance figures have not been great for an extended period. The Thursday night games do have institutional input, are under contract terms, and there is rotation involved.

Conferences do struggle and disagree in trying to work out conference schedules. Schools on the outskirts of the core or the geographic edges do get saddled with more travel miles usually. GT is certainly not on the ACC fringe with nearby Clemson, and having two Florida schools much further south.

In the SEC, South Carolina will play Texas A&M every year as the one regular cross-division opponent. They have never faced each other in fb before. But both schools look favorable at it; and in So. Carolina's case, prefer the change over Arkansas. Carolina Pres. even had a fan poll on this as part of the PR.

Schedules get more brutal some years compared to others. It takes some flexibility, and, seriously, why is the coach complaining rather than the new AD and the Tech President being on the phone pointedly confronting Swofford, with evidence, that the ACC is singling out GT for insensitive scheduling? The long-time Tobacco Road favoring has been a source of ACC discontent, but it is up to Tech officials and other schools that may see themselves treated unfairly by comparison, to take forceful action demanding objectivity and fairness in all phases of conference activity. If the ACC office/Commish are deemed to be little more than pawns for the NC schools, demand a vote of no confidence and push for firings. A coach with an unimpressive stint at the school complaining about a schedule sounds too much like an excuse; particularly if it happens regularly. Given the limitations a conference has with schedule set-ups, there does not seem to be a lot of room for hanky-panky. And, schools pick their OOC opponents, with certain limitations in availability and having a very narrow number of dates to work with. Tech's schedule looks doable, and there are a number of other schools out there that struggle just to get to a viable schedule.

Years before GT was ever in the ACC, Boddy Dodd (GT) and Frank Howard (Clemson) came up with this scheme to play every year in Atlanta on GT's home turf. GT obviously had the best of that one, but it was well before Clemson surpassed GT in game-day numbers.

Take a conference game in the SEC, UGA--Florida every year at Jacksonville. It's almost a home game for Florida, and fan expenditures go disproportionately to Florida businesses, though ticket distributions are to be equal. That remains an issue for Georgia, but to break the tradition would be problematic also.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum